Criacionismo e a (des)Informação
O Jónatas Machado comentou aqui que:
«O Ludwig Krippahl continua a tenter defender o indefensável, em momento algum explicando a alegada origem casual do DNA ou o modo como a informação genética é acrescentada ao genoma através de mutações e selecção natural. As primeiras, esmagadoramente deletérias, deterioram o genoma, como se de erros de software se tratasse»
Vamos lá então tratar disso. Primeiro, aproveito a analogia para mencionar a programação genética, iniciada por Holland em 1975. A abordagem é aplicar os mecanismos da evolução biológica a programas de computador. Gera-se aleatoriamente uma população de programas, recombina-se fragmentos ao acaso, introduzem-se mutações aleatórias, e põe-se tudo a competir no desempenho de uma tarefa. E funciona. Neste momento há 36 casos em que algoritmos gerados desta forma têm um desempenho ao nível dos algoritmos concebidos por programadores inteligentes. 21 destes duplicam métodos já patenteados e dois geraram métodos novos patenteáveis. E isto com umas dúzias de pessoas em trinta anos. Imaginem os resultados com todos os organismos do planeta a trabalhar nisto durante quatro mil milhões de anos.
O Jónatas dirá que os algoritmos que fazem as mutações e simulam a evolução são programados por humanos inteligentes, e estes também interpretam os resultados. É verdade, a analogia é fraca. Mas é a sua e mesmo assim funciona muito bem. Por mim, continuo a insistir que é errado ver o ADN como uma linguagem, ou programas de computador, ou planos de montagem, ou qualquer coisa que sugira inteligência. O ADN é uma molécula que reage com outras moléculas. Tem tanto de inteligente como a água ou o ovo cozido.
Mas isto hoje é sobre informação, outra palavra que engana. Considerem a frase «Ser ou não ser» Duas pessoas copiam esta frase, e escrevem «Ser ou não cer». À partida diríamos que se perdeu informação. Uma das pessoas era um aluno pouco atento lá se foi um bocado de informação. Mas a outra pessoa era um espião experiente. Usou o erro ortográfico cuidadosamente colocado para informar o seu contacto do local onde deixar os planos secretos que roubou. Um enorme ganho de informação.
Que raio... a mesma alteração num caso perde informação e noutro ganha. Evidentemente, não estamos a capturar bem o conceito de informação. Este problema já Shannon resolveu em 1948 (1), mas resultados tão recentes não estão ainda difundidos entre os criacionistas:
«Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant [...] The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages.»
A quantidade de informação contida numa mensagem é independente do significado que lhe damos. Depende apenas do que temos que especificar. Por exemplo, queremos transmitir um número com 6 dígitos. Há um milhão de combinações possíveis, por isso temos que transmitir informação tal que permita especificar uma de um milhão de possibilidades: 20 bits de informação. Não interessa para que vão servir os 6 dígitos.
Assim a informação de uma sequência é o número de possíveis sequências daquele comprimento com aqueles elementos. No caso do ADN há sempre 4 tipos de elementos, e a quantidade de informação é unicamente função do comprimento da molécula. Quanto mais ADN mais informação está contida na sequência. Isto quer vá controlar o desenvolvimento embrionário dum golfinho quer vá servir de pesa-papéis. Não interessa a função, como não interessa o significado da mensagem. Informação é apenas o necessário para especificar a sequência.
Assim é fácil ver como as mutações aumentam a informação. Ao introduzir sequências novas na população aumentam a informação contida na população (a evolução funciona com populações). E ao duplicar trechos duma sequência aumentam o seu tamanho, aumentando a informação nessa sequência. Duplicação seguida de outras mutações dá origem a trechos diferentes, e cada vez mais informação. No ADN isto funciona bem porque não são palavras nem frases. Enquanto uma palavra mutante provavelmente deixa de ser palavra, uma proteína mutante é tão proteína como qualquer outra, e se reage de forma diferente pode bem ser isso que o organismo precisa. E mesmo em software isto funciona.
1- Claude Shannon, 1948, A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Mais informação sobre programação genética:
http://www.genetic-programming.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
Um artigo interessante do Instute for Creation Research, da Califórnia (www.icr.org)
ResponderEliminarEvolution--Impossible to Embarrass Its Believers (#200)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Abstract
"And He spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?" (Luke 6:39).
Creationists have often pointed out that evolution is unscientific because it can never be proved by science to be true. It is not happening at present and without a time machine, they can never be sure that it happened in the past.
Regardless of how much an organism looks like it had been intelligently designed, evolutionists (without even sounding embarrassed) will insist that natural selection has the power to make it look like it was designed, even though it wasn't. Furthermore, no matter what fossil they find out of its accepted place in the evolutionary "record," the evolutionists can "explain" how it got there.
The recent discovery of the intact flesh of a Tyrannosaurus rex with its "blood vessels—still flexible and elastic after 68 million years—and apparently intact cells"1 is a case in point. It would seem impossible for such soft structures to be preserved intact even for 6800 years, but evolutionists accept it on faith.
Similarly, Silurian fossil ostracodes supposedly 425 million years old have been found recently in England virtually identical to their modern-day counterparts and containing "a jaw-dropping amount of detail,"2 but this discovery does not faze evolutionists. They still believe it was buried 425 million years ago!
On another front, one would think that geophysicists would be embarrassed by their repeated failure to find the so-called Mohorovocic Discontinuity (except by inference from seismic waves) at the boundary between the earth's "crust" and "mantle." Since the supposed evolutionary history of the earth is theoretically related to this "Moho," scientists have been trying to confirm its existence, along with the assumed nature of the mantle, by drilling deep holes in the crust. This has been going on since the early sixties without success, the latest such attempt having failed earlier this year.
The Bible long ago prophesied that it was not possible that the "heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath" (Jeremiah 31:37). Nevertheless: "Undaunted, oceanographers are ready to try again."3
On the heavenly front, the same unembarrassed evolutionary cosmologists will evidently continue trying to "explain" the evolutionary history of the cosmos. Theories abound, and change frequently, the rising favorite being "string theory," involving multiple dimensions of space and even multiple universes of space/time. However, as one evolutionary astrophysicist admits: ". . . the universe unveiled by the hellishly complex mathematics of super-string theory is not even remotely close to what string theorists anticipated."4
Another cosmologist insists, however, that "string theory possesses a virtue for which many physicists are willing to accept these seeming absurdities: It can reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity."5 But then he admits that "the theory itself continues to grow more complicated and mysterious."6
Its main virtue is that it can explain the cosmos without God. As Gardner insists, ". . . the fundamental credo of science is that deep mysteries like these will someday, if only in the distant future, succumb to rational explanation."7
And what about human evolution? A recent statistical study of the genetics of human populations revealed,
the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past. . . . In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models.8
The writer avoids mentioning the "Adam and Eve" explanation, of course. Nevertheless, he also notes that: "And a few thousand years before that, . . . the ancestors of everyone on the earth today were exactly the same."9
One would think that analyses such as this, made by evolutionists on the real data of genetics and human populations would be embarrassing to evolutionists who commonly postulate an approximately million-year history of human existence on earth. But even if there were people living all during the past million years, how come they all kept the same genetic makeup until just a few thousand years ago? The Biblical record would seem at least relevant to the discussion!
Then there are the recent research findings by ICR scientists and others working on the RATE project that have
uncovered many new evidences that the earth is young, including the ubiquitous presence of radiocarbon in coal beds and even in diamonds. For years, of course, creationists have been pointing out that no real evolution has taken place during the several thousand years of human history and also that there are no legitimate series of transitional forms in the fossil beds of the past, plus the negative effects of mutations and the testimony of the laws of thermodynamics—all of which seem to make any macroevolution extremely unlikely, if not impossible.
Yet evolutionists continue to control the scientific and education establishments, insisting that total evolution is a scientific fact and creation is religion, so only evolution can be allowed to be taught in public schools and colleges. They gloat over the alleged fact that "an unprecedented 14 percent of Americans tell pollsters that they are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, or simply disinterested in religion."10 Even if this figure is assumed to be correct, it still leaves 86% of the population who believe in God.
And they express surprise that so many people have somehow come to believe in creation despite all the brainwashing in schools. The editor-in-chief of the premier magazine Science, recently moaned in a lead editorial that:
Alternatives to the teaching of biological evolution are now being debated in no fewer than 40 states. Worse, evolution is not the only science under such challenge. In several school districts, geology materials are being rewritten because their dates for Earth's age are inconsistent with scripture (too old).11
A few evolutionists do seem to have at least a glimpse of why we object to their insistence that evolution be considered a scientifically proven fact. The following commentary on evolutionary science was in a recent issue of Geotimes.
Evolutionists have "Physics Envy." They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It's not.
The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. . . . I think this is what the public discerns—that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.12
Another evolutionist makes an interesting admission. He says: "Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings."13 They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.
Evolutionists can't seem to comprehend why most Americans still believe in God, creation, and the Bible, despite having the "fact" of evolution dogmatically taught to them throughout their school years. The fact is that there is an abundance of objective evidence that the Bible really is the Word of God. It is not just a book of religion as they argue, but a book of factual history. Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead and Jesus Christ really did confirm the truth of the Biblical account of origins. Creationists do not believe in the Bible just because they are ignorant of science.
Peter says that "we have not followed cunningly devised fables. . . . We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed . . ."
(II Peter 1:16,19). And the apostle Paul, prophesying of the humanists of "the last days" said that they would be "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (II Timothy
3:1,7) because "they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).
A creationist scientist justifiably might think of the Psalmist's caustic commentary on the ancient idol-making pantheistic evolutionists:
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: . . . They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them (Psalm 115:4,5,8).
Endnotes
Erik Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects," Science (vol. 307, March 25, 2005), p. 1852.
Erik Stokstad, "Gutsy Fossil Sets Record for Staying the Course," Science (vol. 302, December 5, 2003), p. 1645.
Richard A. Kerr, "Pursued for 40 Years, the Moho Evades Ocean Drillers Once Again," Science (vol. 307, March 18, 2005), p. 1707.
James N. Gardner, "Fundamental Cosmological Understanding Eludes Us," Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 28, July/August, 2004), p. 51.
Adrian Cho, "String Theory Gets Real—Sort of," Science (vol. 306, November 26, 2004), p. 1461.
Ibid., p. 1462.
James N. Gardner, op. cit., p. 52.
Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the Recent Common Ancestry of all Living Humans," Nature (vol. 431, September 30, 2004), p. 562.
Ibid., p. 565.
Promotional brochure published by the Council for Secular Humanism.
Donald Kennedy, "Twilight for the Enlightenment?" Science (vol. 308, April 8, 2005), p. 165.
John Chaikowsky, "Geology v. Physics," Geotimes (vol. 50, April 2005), p. 6.
David Weatherall, "Conduct Unbecoming," American Scientist (vol. 93, January-February 2005), p. 73.
Outro artigo interessante sobre matemática, probabilidades e evolução.
ResponderEliminarThe Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution (#179)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Discussion
There have been many other ways in which creationist writers have used probability arguments to refute evolutionism, especially the idea of random changes preserved, if beneficial, by natural selection. James Coppedge devoted almost an entire book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Zondervan, 1973, 276 pp.), to this type of approach. I have also used other probability-type arguments to the same end (see, e.g., Science and Creation, Master Books, pp. 161-201).
The first such book, so far as I know, to use mathematics and probability in refuting evolution was written by a pastor, W. A. Williams, way back in 1928. Entitled, Evolution Disproved, it made a great impression on me when I first read it about 1943, at a time when I myself was still struggling with evolution.
In fact, evolutionists themselves have attacked traditional Darwinism on the same basis (see the Wistar Institute Symposium, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, 140 pp.). While these scientists did not reject evolution itself, they did insist that the Darwinian randomness postulate would never work.
Furthermore, since the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, is essentially a statement of probabilities, many writers have also used that law itself to show that evolution on any significant scale is essentially impossible. Evolutionists have usually ignored the arguments or else used vacuous arguments against them ("Anything can happen given enough time"; "The earth is an open system, so the second law doesn't apply"; "Order can arise out of chaos through dissipative structures"; etc.).
In the real world of scientific observation, as opposed to metaphysical speculation, however, no more complex system can ever "evolve" out of a less complex system, so the probability of the naturalistic origin of even the simplest imaginary form of life is zero.
The existence of complexity of any kind is evidence of God and creation. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one faileth" (Isaiah 40:26).
Outro artigo interessante sobre matemática, probabilidades e evolução.
ResponderEliminarThe Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution (#179)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Discussion
There have been many other ways in which creationist writers have used probability arguments to refute evolutionism, especially the idea of random changes preserved, if beneficial, by natural selection. James Coppedge devoted almost an entire book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Zondervan, 1973, 276 pp.), to this type of approach. I have also used other probability-type arguments to the same end (see, e.g., Science and Creation, Master Books, pp. 161-201).
The first such book, so far as I know, to use mathematics and probability in refuting evolution was written by a pastor, W. A. Williams, way back in 1928. Entitled, Evolution Disproved, it made a great impression on me when I first read it about 1943, at a time when I myself was still struggling with evolution.
In fact, evolutionists themselves have attacked traditional Darwinism on the same basis (see the Wistar Institute Symposium, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, 140 pp.). While these scientists did not reject evolution itself, they did insist that the Darwinian randomness postulate would never work.
Furthermore, since the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, is essentially a statement of probabilities, many writers have also used that law itself to show that evolution on any significant scale is essentially impossible. Evolutionists have usually ignored the arguments or else used vacuous arguments against them ("Anything can happen given enough time"; "The earth is an open system, so the second law doesn't apply"; "Order can arise out of chaos through dissipative structures"; etc.).
In the real world of scientific observation, as opposed to metaphysical speculation, however, no more complex system can ever "evolve" out of a less complex system, so the probability of the naturalistic origin of even the simplest imaginary form of life is zero.
The existence of complexity of any kind is evidence of God and creation. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one faileth" (Isaiah 40:26).
Quer então isto dizer que os dinossauros andavam aí há menos de 6000 anos e por isso se preservou esse tal tecido? Ok... então os egipcios encontraram alguns...e os chineses quase que conviveram com eles...
ResponderEliminarJá agora, se deus criou a vida, porque usou os mesmos ossos para morcegos, baleias e macacos? Porque usou o mesmo material para virtualmente todas as formas de vida? aliás , para quê o material genético? E se deus criou todas as formas de vida, para quê a possibilidade de novas surgirem ou de serem inventadas por nós? Porque devo acreditar que é mais plausível a criação por uma entidade inteligente? E não me canso de perguntar, se a selecção natural não existe, como funciona a selecção artificial? como foi possível num curto espaço de tempo tornar uma planta venenosa como a batata numa comestível? Como é possivel haver ratos com orelhas nas costas ou que brilham no escuro? Como é que deus se lembrou de juntar um alga e um fungo e dar-lhe o nome de líquene?como é possível que deus se tenha lembrado deste puzzle cujas peças até se encaixam numa teoria da evoluçao? Talvez para podermos estar aqui a ter esta conversa. Gostava de saber quantos, entre aqueles que não acreditam que a evolução possa explicar o aparecimento/desaparecimento dos seres vivos, são contra a investigação de novos antibióticos. Têm de ser todos; se não há evolução, não há necessidade de novos antibióticos. Se calhar é um jogo de gato e rato entre nós e deus, que se diverte a criar uma nova bactéria logo após desenvolvermos um antibiótico que a destrói...
Dirão que não é a mesma coisa. Concordo, há diferenças de escala. O que acontece é que a maioria das pessoas não é humilde o suficiente para admitir que há grandezas que o nosso cérebro pode não conseguir abraçar.Alguém sabe o que são 1000 anos? e 1000 anos para uma árvore? será o mesmo que 12 horas para uma mosca? Eu e uma árvore temos com certeza ideia diferente sobre o que são 6000 anos... Não quero com isto dizer que devemos acreditar numa visão em particular mas antes que, lá por eu não conseguir conceber o infinito, seja mais lógico reduzi-lo a uma entidade inteligente. E já agora, o erro de qualquer análise criacionista é a de se continuar a achar que, como o criacionismo, tem de existir um sentido na evolução, uma direcção, um início e um fim (que somos nós, com certeza...). Está visível no artigo anterior sobre a probabilidade da evolução.Continua-se a usar a dicotomia cristã do bom e do mau... Não há mutações más e boas à priori. elas acontecem (acredito que ninguem duvide que acontecem) e num determinado contexto mostram-se vantajosas ou não. Probabilidade da evolução...tem piada. Como alguém uma vez disse, se eu tenho dois frangos e tu não tens nenhum, em média temos 1 cada um. Voilá, ninguém passa fome...